From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat May 28 05:42:58 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 28 May 2005 05:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1Dc0eN-0006MI-9R
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 28 May 2005 05:42:47 -0700
Received: from web81306.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.81])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1Dc0eI-0006MA-6O
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 28 May 2005 05:42:47 -0700
Message-ID: <20050528124359.37476.qmail@web81306.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [68.88.37.184] by web81306.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 28 May 2005 05:43:59 PDT
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 05:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Again {lo}.
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: 6667
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-archive-position: 10073
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

Unfortunately, it can be argued that {lo'e} means
something different from the generalization that
was intended using {lo}.  Just what the
difference is is not too clear, though {le'e}
pretty clearly brings in a subjective factor
absent from the others.

--- robin <robin@bilkent.edu.tr> wrote:
> Jorge Llambías wrote:
> > On 5/27/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > 
> >>Does this mean what I and Robin TR said is
> not
> >>true of {lo gerku}?
> > 
> > 
> > But you two said different things.
> > 
> > Robin.tr said: "{lo gerku cu pendo lo remna}
> means that 
> > there is at least one dog, such that it is a
> friend to at least 
> > one human, which is not what we want here."
> > 
> > pc said: "Surely, if no dog is a friend of
> any man, then
> > {le gerku cu xagai pendo lo remna} is false,
> so it does 
> > indeed entail Robin Turk's claimed reading."
> > 
> > But the problem with Robin.tr's statement was
> not
> > what {lo gerku cu pendo lo remna} _entails_
> but rather
> > what it _means_ in full. The question was
> whether or not it is 
> > what we want here to translate "the dog is
> man's best friend".
> > 
> > Robin.tr is quite correct that {su'o lo gerku
> cu xagrai pendo
> > su'o lo remna} is a bad translation of "the
> dog is man's 
> > best friend", even if the latter entails the
> former.
> > 
> > Robin.tr was assuming that {lo gerku cu
> xagrai pendo
> > lo remna} = {su'o lo gerku cu xagrai pendo
> su'o lo remna}.
> > (Not just entails but completely equivalent.)
> > 
> > Robin.ca correctly pointed out that with the
> BPFK understanding
> > of {lo}, {lo gerku cu xagrai pendo lo remna}
> is not the same
> > thing as {su'o lo gerku cu xagrai pendo su'o
> lo remna}, and that
> > the former, (but not the latter) is a good
> translation of
> > "the dog is man's best friend".
> > 
> 
> It's a possible translation, but I still think
> {lo'e} is a better one. 
> Using {lo} is even more ambiguous with the BPFK
> sense. Besides, {lo'e} 
> and {le'e} are such cute articles, it's a shame
> not to use them! I think 
> {lo'e} is particularly useful for this kind of
> adage.
> 
> robin.tr
> 
> 
> 
>